The Chinese Government remains unclear about the enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law’s price maintenance provision

Since the Anti-monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China [1] ("AML") came into effect, there has been much debate about the circumstances in which minimum resale price maintenance ("RPM") will constitute a vertical monopolistic agreement prohibited by Article 14 of the AML. In the debate, the most contentious issue is whether RPM should be regarded as per se illegal or if the "rule of reason" doctrine [2] should be adopted to assess on a case-by-case basis, whether the RPM is illegal. In reviewing the AML, it can be seen that RPM is one kind of vertical monopolistic agreement, as categorized by Article 14 of the AML. Article 13 of the AML defines monopolistic agreements as "agreements, decisions or other concerted practices that eliminate or restrict competition". This

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • King & Wood Mallesons (Beijing)

Quotation

Cheng Liu, The Chinese Government remains unclear about the enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law’s price maintenance provision, 7 August 2013, e-Competitions August 2013, Art. N° 98362

Visites 5

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues